If the US wanted a false flag chemical attack to pin on Assad, why not use the rebels they are in contact with in Syria (some of who already have makeshift chemical weapons) or just use US intelligence assets in the country? Outsourcing this to third parties just adds to the chance things go wrong.

That's something conspiracy theorists can almost never explain. The government pulling something like this, or destroying the Twin Towers, or orchestrating school shootings requires quite a few people. And the more people that are involved (particularly if they're from third parties), the bigger the risk is that the conspiracy will be definitively exposed by one of them (Note 'definitively. As in "not 'exposed' by an anonymous letter from the friend of a contact's cousin who heard it in a bar, posted on Conspiracy Nut Central"). And even if a President were inclined to do something on that scale, the risk of someone involved developing a conscience and exposing the conspiracy far, FAR outweighs any benefits.

Because, if a President did order something on that scale and it got leaked, well, he'd likely be the first American president to get the death penalty.

If the US wanted a false flag chemical attack to pin on Assad, why not use the rebels they are in contact with in Syria (some of who already have makeshift chemical weapons) or just use US intelligence assets in the country? Outsourcing this to third parties just adds to the chance things go wrong.

That's something conspiracy theorists can almost never explain. The government pulling something like this, or destroying the Twin Towers, or orchestrating school shootings requires quite a few people. And the more people that are involved (particularly if they're from third parties), the bigger the risk is that the conspiracy will be definitively exposed by one of them (Note 'definitively. As in "not 'exposed' by an anonymous letter from the friend of a contact's cousin who heard it in a bar, posted on Conspiracy Nut Central"). And even if a President were inclined to do something on that scale, the risk of someone involved developing a conscience and exposing the conspiracy far, FAR outweighs any benefits.

Because, if a President did order something on that scale and it got leaked, well, he'd likely be the first American president to get the death penalty.

Exactly. If you have just one person come out and say "yes, there is a conspiracy" then all would be lost.

doyner:No. If you already have the moral authority to act you don't need to compromise your position to do so.

That in itself is already a weird situation. If the rest of the world has the moral authority to act, why haven't they? Is a man less dead because he's killed with a bullet instead a nerve agent? How many lives can be taken with conventional weapons before the world community steps in, compared to how many can be taken with chemical weapons? Children are being tortured to death on a regular basis. Moral authority took a smoke break a few months ago.

That in itself is already a weird situation. If the rest of the world has the moral authority to act, why haven't they? Is a man less dead because he's killed with a bullet instead a nerve agent? How many lives can be taken with conventional weapons before the world community steps in, compared to how many can be taken with chemical weapons? Children are being tortured to death on a regular basis. Moral authority took a smoke break a few months ago.

doyner:Can you adopt every dog from the pound before they're put down? Can you donate enough blood to ensure everyone gets a needed transfusion?

No, but that's not really the point of my question. This situation is more analogous to a shelter that routinely abuses their animals, and while we're more than willing to write a pointed op-ed column about it every so often, we scoff at the idea of adopting any of the animals still living inside because it would inconvenience us.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist:doyner: Can you adopt every dog from the pound before they're put down? Can you donate enough blood to ensure everyone gets a needed transfusion?

No, but that's not really the point of my question. This situation is more analogous to a shelter that routinely abuses their animals, and while we're more than willing to write a pointed op-ed column about it every so often, we scoff at the idea of adopting any of the animals still living inside because it would inconvenience us.

Having adopted shelter animals, and yet not able to adopt all, I have come to terms with the limitation, and have drawn the line at a point that is tenable with all other aspects of my life.

For the record, I'm not advocating inaction, but the real question is where we draw the line in the cost/moral benefit analysis.

doyner:Having adopted shelter animals, and yet not able to adopt all, I have come to terms with the limitation, and have drawn the line at a point that is tenable with all other aspects of my life.

For the record, I'm not advocating inaction, but the real question is where we draw the line in the cost/moral benefit analysis.

And I suppose it's not entirely like adopting an animal, but breaking into the facility in order to save them, so there's some inherent risk there. I just find the situation sad that Russia needs a Mediterranean port, so Assad has free reign to do whatever the fark he wants, regardless of near unanimous international disapproval.

Unless you are trying to say that there isn't a difference between the words and phrasing that people who have learned English as a first language and used it as their primary language for their entire lives and people that have learned English as a second language or have not used it as their primary language. The same goes for any language. You can be fluent in Spanish, but trust me, if you go to a Spanish speaking country they will know you are not a native Spanish speaker.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist:doyner: Having adopted shelter animals, and yet not able to adopt all, I have come to terms with the limitation, and have drawn the line at a point that is tenable with all other aspects of my life.

For the record, I'm not advocating inaction, but the real question is where we draw the line in the cost/moral benefit analysis.

And I suppose it's not entirely like adopting an animal, but breaking into the facility in order to save them, so there's some inherent risk there. I just find the situation sad that Russia needs a Mediterranean port, so Assad has free reign to do whatever the fark he wants, regardless of near unanimous international disapproval.

I agree with you. It is a terrible circumstance. I'm just not sure it isn't potentially a one-way ticket to a much, much broader conflict.

tjfly:Drew's ad revenues must be dwindling for this tripe to have gotten green lit.

I disagree. Trolltastic headline aside, it's a good story. At the least, it's an interesting progaganda specimen. Alternatively, if the central facts if the story are actually true, someone is trying to goad some British contractors into smuggling a chemical warhead out of Libya and setting it off in Syria, presumably to draw NATO into the confilict. Pretty lulzy, I'd say.

It's not even that: it's a British defense contractor saying that Qatar had contacted them about selling chemical weapons to Syrian rebels and then said "the United States would totally approve of it if you did it." It's an e-mail from someone claiming they were told by a second person that a third person would grant approval to a program. It's weaker than hearsay.

But if we don't treat this as something that is probably true it shows how we worship Obama apparently.

It's not even that: it's a British defense contractor saying that Qatar had contacted them about selling chemical weapons to Syrian rebels and then said "the United States would totally approve of it if you did it." It's an e-mail from someone claiming they were told by a second person that a third person would grant approval to a program. It's weaker than hearsay.

But if we don't treat this as something that is probably true it shows how we worship Obama apparently.

Infowars.com has more pulitzers than dogs consumed by Obama. Study it out!

Allow me to sum up Alex Jones' position on Syria. The NWO is desperate and is losing the fight for our firearms. We must be disarmed before they can start rounding us up in FEMA camps, destroy the dollar, impose Chinese style working conditions on us, and then exterminate 99% of the population with a bio weapon so the new "royalty" can use its robot army to run the Earth with the select few humans remaining. Since the government runs Al Qaida, they're going to be directed by the president (who is a puppet of the NWO) to gain access to chemical weapons and use them against Syrian people as a pretext for starting WWIII. Then ensuing destruction, and desperate population, will allow the NWO to further their agenda before "enough people wake up" and realize their plans (which I won't type out because there's wayyy to many to list).

/I did not make any of that up, that's exactly what he's saying everyday on his show

Unless you are trying to say that there isn't a difference between the words and phrasing that people who have learned English as a first language and used it as their primary language for their entire lives and people that have learned English as a second language or have not used it as their primary language. The same goes for any language. You can be fluent in Spanish, but trust me, if you go to a Spanish speaking country they will know you are not a native Spanish speaker.

and, of all the questionable aspects to this story, I found it interesting that you focused on the fact that the speaker might not speak English as a first language. What was THAT supposed to mean?

Unless you are trying to say that there isn't a difference between the words and phrasing that people who have learned English as a first language and used it as their primary language for their entire lives and people that have learned English as a second language or have not used it as their primary language. The same goes for any language. You can be fluent in Spanish, but trust me, if you go to a Spanish speaking country they will know you are not a native Spanish speaker.

and, of all the questionable aspects to this story, I found it interesting that you focused on the fact that the speaker might not speak English as a first language. What was THAT supposed to mean?

It is supposed to mean that they claim the email came from a British citizen whose name would lead you to believe that he is a native speaker, but the way the sentenced is phrased doesn't sound like the way a native English speaker would do it. In other words it seems like a person from another country wrote this and is trying to pass it off as something a British defense contractor wrote.

Fail in Human Form:Allow me to sum up Alex Jones' position on Syria. The NWO is desperate and is losing the fight for our firearms. We must be disarmed before they can start rounding us up in FEMA camps, destroy the dollar, impose Chinese style working conditions on us, and then exterminate 99% of the population with a bio weapon so the new "royalty" can use its robot army to run the Earth with the select few humans remaining. Since the government runs Al Qaida, they're going to be directed by the president (who is a puppet of the NWO) to gain access to chemical weapons and use them against Syrian people as a pretext for starting WWIII. Then ensuing destruction, and desperate population, will allow the NWO to further their agenda before "enough people wake up" and realize their plans (which I won't type out because there's wayyy to many to list).

/I did not make any of that up, that's exactly what he's saying everyday on his show

Unless you are trying to say that there isn't a difference between the words and phrasing that people who have learned English as a first language and used it as their primary language for their entire lives and people that have learned English as a second language or have not used it as their primary language. The same goes for any language. You can be fluent in Spanish, but trust me, if you go to a Spanish speaking country they will know you are not a native Spanish speaker.

and, of all the questionable aspects to this story, I found it interesting that you focused on the fact that the speaker might not speak English as a first language. What was THAT supposed to mean?

It is supposed to mean that they claim the email came from a British citizen whose name would lead you to believe that he is a native speaker, but the way the sentenced is phrased doesn't sound like the way a native English speaker would do it. In other words it seems like a person from another country wrote this and is trying to pass it off as something a British defense contractor wrote.

That in itself is already a weird situation. If the rest of the world has the moral authority to act, why haven't they? Is a man less dead because he's killed with a bullet instead a nerve agent? How many lives can be taken with conventional weapons before the world community steps in, compared to how many can be taken with chemical weapons? Children are being tortured to death on a regular basis. Moral authority took a smoke break a few months ago.

We don't have the moral authority to act; or rather, the act we can take is circumscribed by that very moral authority.

Imagine that you live next door to a man you know is abusing his family. You can hear through the walls every night as he beats his wife, whips his children, kicks the dog, yells, screams, until he drops into bed in a drunken stupor. You've seen the wife and kids stagger out of the house every day covered in bruises and bloody welts and god knows how many dogs you've buried. Now: Do you have the moral authority to kick down his door some night and murder him in his bed because of his awful acts? No.

You can't argue that nobody would miss him--certainly not his beaten wife and kids; that this guy is an awful person and society is better off without him. Your authority stops at his door. You CAN call the cops, offer support to his wife and kids, testify against him at court, do all the things a civilized society lets you do. But you can't unilaterally break into his home and kill him because YOU, personally, find his acts repugnant and even illegal.

It's the same thing in the international community. Yes, Assad has done awful, murderous things. He's killed his own people, tortured them, probably worse. But if we call ourselves a moral society, we have no right to invade another country (kick the door down, so to speak) because WE say his acts are too awful to let stand. We can offer support to his people, offer intervention if they ask us to (like France did in Libya), help bring Assad and his ministers before the International Court. But if America or any other nation unilaterally invades to unseat Assad, things will turn out no better than they did in Iraq. And for the same reasons.

Lionel Mandrake:Fail in Human Form: Allow me to sum up Alex Jones' position on Syria. The NWO is desperate and is losing the fight for our firearms. We must be disarmed before they can start rounding us up in FEMA camps, destroy the dollar, impose Chinese style working conditions on us, and then exterminate 99% of the population with a bio weapon so the new "royalty" can use its robot army to run the Earth with the select few humans remaining. Since the government runs Al Qaida, they're going to be directed by the president (who is a puppet of the NWO) to gain access to chemical weapons and use them against Syrian people as a pretext for starting WWIII. Then ensuing destruction, and desperate population, will allow the NWO to further their agenda before "enough people wake up" and realize their plans (which I won't type out because there's wayyy to many to list).

/I did not make any of that up, that's exactly what he's saying everyday on his show

I gotta start tuning into this guy. He sounds hilarious.

It's entertaining for a few hours. He starts to say the same shiat over and over though and produces like 3 hours of it per day everyday for over a decade.